Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06151999 - C151 C. 151 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA C()I,YNTY, CALIFORNIA Adapted this Carder on June 15,1999, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, Gerber and Canciamilla NOES: 'done ABSENT: Supervisor DeSaulnier ABSTAIN: ?Tone 1999 Grand Jury Report No. 9906 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered the 1998-99 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9906 titled, "The County Homeless Services — Do They Go Far Enough" (as attached), on the consent portion of the agenda. The consent items were discussed, and Supervisor Uilkema moved to accept the items. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD) ORDERED that Grand Jury Report No. 9906 is ACCEPTED. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taker_and entered on the minutes of the Board of supervisors on the date shown. Attested: June 15 , 19 9 9 Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy ler A REPORT BY THE 1998-99 CONTRA COSTA COSY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez, California 94553 MAY 2 0 ,999 ` Report No, 9906 CL R,,2v,A'� 0 O,=S�; � t �. �v. The County Homeless Services- Do They Go Far Enough? APPROVE ?BY THE Celt Y: Date: t AWRENCE W EN GRAND JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR.FILING: Date: JO VA�q DE POEL OFTBE SUPERIOR COURT 'f r Section 933.(0) & 933. 5 C lifori eia Government Cade Section 933. Corrsmenis and ReiDorts on Section 933.05 Response= to Granas sure Grand Joey Recornmendctions Recommendations-!Content (C) No inter than 90 days after the Reaulrernents: Permrig Appearance by grand jury submits a final report on the Resraondinaa Party; Grand Jury Resort to operation of any public agency subject to Affected A_gpncy. its reviewing authority, the governing (a) For purposes of subdivision (c) of body of the public agency shall comment Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, to the presiding judge of the superior court the responding person or entity shalt! on the findings and recommendations indicate one of the following; pertaining to matters under the control of (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. the governing beady, and every elective (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or county officer or agency head for which partially with the finding,in which cease the the grand jury has responsibility pursuant response shall specify the portion of the to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 finding that is disputed and shall include days to the presiding judge of the superior can explanation of the reasons therefor. court,with an information copy sent to the (8) For purposes of subdivision (c) of board.of supervisors,on the findings and section 933, as to each grand jury recommendations pertaining to matters recommendation, the responding person under the control of that county officer or or entity shall report on of the following agency head and any agency or actions; agencies which that officer or agency (1)The recommendation has been head supervises or controls, in the findings implemented,with a summary regarding and recommendations, All such comments the implemented action. and reports shall forthwith be submitted to (2) The recommendation has not yet been the presiding judge of the superior court implemented,but wilt be implemented in who impaneled the grand jury.A copy of the future,with a tirnefraarre for calf responses to grand jury reports shall be Implementation. placed on file with the clam of the public (3)The recommendation requires further agency and the office of the county clerk, analysis,with and explanation of the or the mayor when applicable, and shall scope and parameters of an analysis or remain on file in those offices.One copy study,and a timeframe for the matter to shall be placed on file with the applicable be prepared for discussion by the officer grand jury final report by, and In the or director of the agency sit department control of the currently Impaneled grand being investigated or reviewed,including jury,where it shall be maintained for a the governing body of than public agency minimum of five years. t.eg.H.1961 ch. when applicable.This timeframe shall not 1234. 1'963 ch. 674, 1974 chs.393,1396. 1977 exceed six months from the date of chs. 107. 187, 1980 ch.543, 1981 ch. 203, publication of the grand jury reports 1982 ch. 14078 sec.5, 1985 ch. 221 sect, eff. (4) The recommendation will not be .7112185 ch 690 sec. 1> 1988 ch. 1297.1997 Implemented because It is not warranted ch.443 or Is not reasonable,with an explanation therefor. The foregoing are portions of Section 933, the responding party is responsible for compliance with all of the requirements. Grand Jury Report No. 9906 The County Homeless Services - Do They Go FarEnough? Activists for the homeless have expressed criticisms of the Contra Costa County Homeless Program. This report addresses the validity of their criticisms, FINDINGS: I. There is no accurate count of the homeless population in Contra Costa County. . The Contra Costa County Homeless Program("the Program") estimates between 13,000 and 20,000 homeless in the County. 3. The Program management does not require written reports by the ombudsman regarding visits, contacts, hours worked, miles traveled or donated material dispensed. 4. The Program has one ombudsman for the entire county. 5. There is a shortage of field personnel for health screening of the homeless population. 6. Many homeless are unaware of the Contra Costa County health services available to them. 7. The Health on Wheels(Ho van is new, was built for the program and was donated to the County Health Department by Standard Oil Co. of California and operates exclusively for residents of the Nest County area.. 8, An old field van(a donated, small bus conversion) operates for the whole of Contra Costa County four(4) days per week and is not large enough to have a. private examination room. . The Program directors were unable to provide a mission statement, written reports or follow cap on accountability for disbursements or use of'time, ISS. The County has emergency shelters in Richmond and Concord (both needing repairs)with a combined capacity of 167 single persons and provides motel vouchers for families with children. 11. The County can house eight single women and nine women with children in an additional transitional shelter for up to nine months. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The program lacks direction and management involvement at the highest level. 2. More field personnel are needed for health screening. 3. A reasonably accurate count of the homeless population needs to be established. 4. One ombudsman cannot adequately maintain contact with the county-wide homeless community. 5. The Brookside Shelter in Richmond is in serious need of repair or replacement 6. The North Concord Shelter's kitchen facilities, carpeting and paint need to be upgraded. Shelter improvements could be done as job training for qualified residents with the assistance of professional personnel. 7. The County is doing an adequate job given its resources but could be doing more. (See Recommendations) 1€ ECC MMI ENDATIONS The 1998-99 Grand Fury recommends that: 1. the County be divided into three regions, to be covered by one ombudsman and two assistants. 2, workers be required to file written reports on areas and encounters with homeless, to include time spent, miles traveled, donated items collected and dispersed. 3. the old field van be replaced with a larger vehicle. 4. the Brookside Shelter in Richmond be replaced with a better and larger structure. 5. the North Concord Shelter be upgraded. 6, a shelter site be opened in east county. 7. donations and grants from all areas be explored more aggressively on a regular basis. 8. a trust account be established to receive donations, and the interest or dividends be used for financing future needs. CONVEWENTS> While we realize that an exact count of the homeless is impossible because of the constantly changing nature of this population, there still should be a way to come closer than a 7,000 (33 percent) differential. (See Findings 1 and 2)